<quoted text>As far as lowering the cost of healthcare is concerned, my point of attack would be tort reform. Whenever tort reform is mentioned, liberals will deny the affect it has claiming that the amount of money awarded in lawsuits doesn't really amount to that much -- and they may be right. However, what I believe may be overlooked is the whole battery of unnecessary (maybe even downright frivolous) tests that physicians prescribe in a CYA move -- health insurance has to pay for them too.With that being said, and with congress and legislatures comprised mostly of lawyers, tort reform is highly unlikely because representatives and senators aren't going to endanger the potential revenue of their bretheran. That is why I would favor a law/amendment prohibiting lawyers from running for offices where laws are made and passed on the basis that in constitutes a conflict of interest -- but that's a whole other discussion.

How do you explain the fact that some of the highest health care costs are in states that cap malpractice awards? See, for example, McAllen, Texas.

<quoted text>Peter writes: "Millions and millions of people are on Medicare. That's broad enough."But, Peter, they are ALL HIGH RISK, so, that is absolutely not a large risk pool. By its nature, insurance is meant to spread the risk; no insurance provider can survive for long, without subsidies, if it covers only high risk clients.Of course, none of that matters to you, since you, apparently, are all for eliminating Medicare, leaving older Americans (metaphorically, of course) out on the ice floes.

So how come the geniuses at the top couldn't see all that and take remedial action before it started? I'm telling you that the inmates running this asylum don't know what they're doing and we want to turn one sixth of the entire ecomomy over to these people??? We must be out of our ever-lovin' minds.

<quoted text>How do you explain the fact that some of the highest health care costs are in states that cap malpractice awards? See, for example, McAllen, Texas.

I don't know. I don't live in McAllen, Texas. I don't know anything about McAllen, Texas. How do you explain it? How high is the cap? Wouldn't doctors still use whatever CYA measures they could to avoid any lawsuit? It can't do a doctor's reputation any good to simply factor in lawsuits as a normal cost of doing busines and let the chips fall where they may. Besides, if you have insurance, the tests and procedures are "free", right? Especially if your employer is paying the premiums. Sheesh.

<quoted text>So how come the geniuses at the top couldn't see all that and take remedial action before it started? I'm telling you that the inmates running this asylum don't know what they're doing and we want to turn one sixth of the entire ecomomy over to these people??? We must be out of our ever-lovin' minds.

When Medicare was enacted, back in the '60s, health care costs were much lower than they are now, and people did not live as long. So, now that we are trying to fix the situation, you scream "no! Don't do anything."

<quoted text>When Medicare was enacted, back in the '60s, health care costs were much lower than they are now, and people did not live as long. So, now that we are trying to fix the situation, you scream "no! Don't do anything."

I'm not screaming any such thing. Your very example tells it all. The bureaucrats in Washington are too ignorant, too slow, too busy getting elected, too whatever to be smart enough, astute enough, flexible enough, whatever enough to recognize a problem and take whatever corrective action necessary to change course and avoid catastrophe. Their modus operandi is to set the ship sailing and then let 'er go and do nothing more because their focus is now on what is the next big boondoggle we can invent to win the next election.

The nation's entire tax code is the best example of this. It is nothing more than a monsterous collection of special interest legislation that is terribly outdated and nobody has the courage to go after it and fix it. They might offend somebody and not get elected.

I cannot understand why anybody would want this stodgy bunch of "me first" politicians running our health care. I just don't get it. They don't have a clue.

<quoted text>I'm not screaming any such thing. Your very example tells it all. The bureaucrats in Washington are too ignorant, too slow, too busy getting elected, too whatever to be smart enough, astute enough, flexible enough, whatever enough to recognize a problem and take whatever corrective action necessary to change course and avoid catastrophe. Their modus operandi is to set the ship sailing and then let 'er go and do nothing more because their focus is now on what is the next big boondoggle we can invent to win the next election.The nation's entire tax code is the best example of this. It is nothing more than a monsterous collection of special interest legislation that is terribly outdated and nobody has the courage to go after it and fix it. They might offend somebody and not get elected.I cannot understand why anybody would want this stodgy bunch of "me first" politicians running our health care. I just don't get it. They don't have a clue.

And yet, the health care reform bills address the current problems Medicare is facing, and Republicans scream, "NO!" The tax code has been modified, many times over.

<quoted text>And yet, the health care reform bills address the current problems Medicare is facing, and Republicans scream, "NO!"The tax code has been modified, many times over.

Oh, sorry, my bad. I meant sensible modifications.

For example, in the early 60's a tax code was introduced that took aim at the ultra rich. Companies provided Group Term Life Insurance for 'key' employees. Congress decided to tax the premiums for coverage in excess of $50,000, an amount that was roughly ten times average annual income at the time. As intended, this had an affect on only the tiniest segment of the work force as the average worker was usually covered for around $10,000-$15,000. The extra kicker in the law was that the tax would not be applied on actual cost but on an amount the government decided it was worth - in other words, total government control. As usual, the law was enacted and then essentially ignored for fifty years. Today, the average annual income is about about ten times higher than it was back then so that the average worker has coverage around $100,000 to $150,000. Naturally, one would expect the ceiling on that benefit to rise proportionately so that it would be close to $500,000 today. Not so. It stayed at $50,000 so that now every worker making an average or above average wage is now paying the tax originally aimed at only the very wealthy. It happens every time.

<quoted text>Peter writes: "Millions and millions of people are on Medicare. That's broad enough."But, Peter, they are ALL HIGH RISK, so, that is absolutely not a large risk pool. By its nature, insurance is meant to spread the risk; no insurance provider can survive for long, without subsidies, if it covers only high risk clients.Of course, none of that matters to you, since you, apparently, are all for eliminating Medicare, leaving older Americans (metaphorically, of course) out on the ice floes.

Risks are amply diversified among the Medicare pool. Adding more people is really just adding younger people. That isn't about diversification, it's about getting more premium dollars to buy down the price for older people. If younger people can be forced to overpay for their risks, Medicare can allow older people to even more significantly underpay for their risks.

But younger people are already over transferring to older people. Social security and Medicare tax rates and the real dollars of income exposed are way higher now than what current retirees faced. Before Medicare and indexing of Social Security to CPI, the elderly were the nation's poorest class. Now it's children. Yet the call for even greater levels of intergenerational transfer payments is louder than ever.

Don't tell me about your broaden the pool trick, tell it to your grandkids. Retirees are truly growing more shameless by the day.

<quoted text>Oh, sorry, my bad. I meant sensible modifications.For example, in the early 60's a tax code was introduced that took aim at the ultra rich. Companies provided Group Term Life Insurance for 'key' employees. Congress decided to tax the premiums for coverage in excess of $50,000, an amount that was roughly ten times average annual income at the time. As intended, this had an affect on only the tiniest segment of the work force as the average worker was usually covered for around $10,000-$15,000. The extra kicker in the law was that the tax would not be applied on actual cost but on an amount the government decided it was worth - in other words, total government control. As usual, the law was enacted and then essentially ignored for fifty years. Today, the average annual income is about about ten times higher than it was back then so that the average worker has coverage around $100,000 to $150,000. Naturally, one would expect the ceiling on that benefit to rise proportionately so that it would be close to $500,000 today. Not so. It stayed at $50,000 so that now every worker making an average or above average wage is now paying the tax originally aimed at only the very wealthy. It happens every time.

The middle class never learns. They cheer the class warfare stuff. But, as always, higher taxes on higher income people are just the down-payment on a bigger, more entrenched, and more expensive government. Eventually, everyone pays more, every time.

The AMT is a great example. Although small, a telecom tax that just recently got dropped is another. It was a "luxury" tax on telephones. Sounds weird until you learn that it was to help fund the Spanish-American War when phones were only in "rich" homes. Of course, the tax stuck around for another 100 years.

<quoted text>Risks are amply diversified among the Medicare pool. Adding more people is really just adding younger people. That isn't about diversification, it's about getting more premium dollars to buy down the price for older people. If younger people can be forced to overpay for their risks, Medicare can allow older people to even more significantly underpay for their risks.But younger people are already over transferring to older people. Social security and Medicare tax rates and the real dollars of income exposed are way higher now than what current retirees faced. Before Medicare and indexing of Social Security to CPI, the elderly were the nation's poorest class. Now it's children. Yet the call for even greater levels of intergenerational transfer payments is louder than ever.Don't tell me about your broaden the pool trick, tell it to your grandkids. Retirees are truly growing more shameless by the day.

Your so right Peter, what Darwinian really wants is other people to subsidize her health care by force of government.

If I had serious health issues, I'd get a second job to pay for it rather then waste my time whining about it on the internet.

I think we find ourselves in these situations when we turn over our rights and responsibilities to our employers or the government.

<quoted text>As far as lowering the cost of healthcare is concerned, my point of attack would be tort reform. Whenever tort reform is mentioned, liberals will deny the affect it has claiming that the amount of money awarded in lawsuits doesn't really amount to that much -- and they may be right. However, what I believe may be overlooked is the whole battery of unnecessary (maybe even downright frivolous) tests that physicians prescribe in a CYA move -- health insurance has to pay for them too.With that being said, and with congress and legislatures comprised mostly of lawyers, tort reform is highly unlikely because representatives and senators aren't going to endanger the potential revenue of their bretheran. That is why I would favor a law/amendment prohibiting lawyers from running for offices where laws are made and passed on the basis that in constitutes a conflict of interest -- but that's a whole other discussion.

You sound like you speak from experience. I've seen some of those CYA tests. I also noticed if the doctor has invested in some medical equipment, they most deffinately want you to use it. MRI's are a perfect example.I would love to see laywers out of the law making decisions, let common sense prevail. But they don't consider that do they?

<quoted text>Heaven forbid we should ever ask anyone to make difficult choices.

Difficult choice for who?

Yeah right. Why would anyone in congress care anyway? They don`t have to live with the same rules and laws that they set down for everyone else. From retirement, to health care, their all covered just fine...why worry about those taxpayers that fork it out for Washington POS?

<quoted text>You sound like you speak from experience. I've seen some of those CYA tests. I also noticed if the doctor has invested in some medical equipment, they most deffinately want you to use it. MRI's are a perfect example.I would love to see laywers out of the law making decisions, let common sense prevail. But they don't consider that do they?

And their not about to. Their already above us all.The rest is "ring in the nose" politics for the general public to squabble over. He`s a good example.

<quoted text>And yet, the health care reform bills address the current problems Medicare is facing, and Republicans scream, "NO!"The tax code has been modified, many times over.

You are joking, right? You can't mean the 40 (only now 41)senators and 178 representatives who have absolutely no abilityto say "NO" to anything your party does, can you? TheRepublicans can scream anything they want to and it wouldbe spitting into the wind. Your party owns the gov't lock, stock, and barrel; if you can't "reform" health care it is100% your party's inability, not anyone else.

And please define "modified". The tax code has approx. 67,000 pages to it; the head of the IRS has to use a taxpreparer service and the head of the Treasury as a wholecan't pay what he should because it is too complicated.How is that "modified"?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.